The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!

I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.

That’s nothing compared to the Beatles’ versatility. They spanned rock n roll, hard rock, classical, ballads, country, psychedelic, world music, old 40s sorts of songs (ex: Martha my dear) and even sort of proto metal (Helter skelter).

To the PP: they were never a boy band, despite their appeal teenage girls. I HATE when people apply that to them. Arguably the first boy band (aka a manufactured group specifically marketed to teenagers and not organically formed) were the Monkees.

https://www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html
I'm still siding with Vulture on this one. They were manufactured early but broke from the mold. The Monkees never broke free.

They broke free when they met Dylan, who introduced them to marijuana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!

I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.

That’s nothing compared to the Beatles’ versatility. They spanned rock n roll, hard rock, classical, ballads, country, psychedelic, world music, old 40s sorts of songs (ex: Martha my dear) and even sort of proto metal (Helter skelter).

To the PP: they were never a boy band, despite their appeal teenage girls. I HATE when people apply that to them. Arguably the first boy band (aka a manufactured group specifically marketed to teenagers and not organically formed) were the Monkees.

https://www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html
I'm still siding with Vulture on this one. They were manufactured early but broke from the mold. The Monkees never broke free.

They broke free when they met Dylan, who introduced them to marijuana.

No.

They were never NOT free. Go back and read their history. Even Dylan said their early music was innovative. From the beginning their albums were either their own songs or songs from their sets at the Cavern or in Hamburg.

A Hard Day’s Night captured their humor and wit. The only thing Brian did was make them wear suits. Otherwise what you saw was authentically them.

You are woefully ignorant about this band.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!

I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.

That’s nothing compared to the Beatles’ versatility. They spanned rock n roll, hard rock, classical, ballads, country, psychedelic, world music, old 40s sorts of songs (ex: Martha my dear) and even sort of proto metal (Helter skelter).

To the PP: they were never a boy band, despite their appeal teenage girls. I HATE when people apply that to them. Arguably the first boy band (aka a manufactured group specifically marketed to teenagers and not organically formed) were the Monkees.

https://www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html
I'm still siding with Vulture on this one. They were manufactured early but broke from the mold. The Monkees never broke free.

They broke free when they met Dylan, who introduced them to marijuana.

No.

They were never NOT free. Go back and read their history. Even Dylan said their early music was innovative. From the beginning their albums were either their own songs or songs from their sets at the Cavern or in Hamburg.

A Hard Day’s Night captured their humor and wit. The only thing Brian did was make them wear suits. Otherwise what you saw was authentically them.

You are woefully ignorant about this band.

+1

[Anonymous]

Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy.

clean cut and sober doesn't equal boy band. you're just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy.

You need to read more about their Hamburg period. It was not clean cut and sober. They were using uppers regularly and played in a very seedy district of Hamburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy.

You need to read more about their Hamburg period. It was not clean cut and sober. They were using uppers regularly and played in a very seedy district of Hamburg.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy.

You need to read more about their Hamburg period. It was not clean cut and sober. They were using uppers regularly and played in a very seedy district of Hamburg.

+10000

I'm the OP who mentioned Dylan and marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs, etc. I never said they were a boy band. I did not post "boy band gone bad boy". But as along as we're on the subject, whether or not they were "clean and sober" during their "Hamburg period" is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Taking uppers to play five sets a night, and then consuming alcohol to come down was what most kids in rock bands were doing then. The psychedelic drugs they began taking around 1966 (when they stopped touring) profoundly changed the direction of their music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying. In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group.

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy.

You need to read more about their Hamburg period. It was not clean cut and sober. They were using uppers regularly and played in a very seedy district of Hamburg.

+10000

I'm the OP who mentioned Dylan and marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs, etc. I never said they were a boy band. I did not post "boy band gone bad boy". But as along as we're on the subject, whether or not they were "clean and sober" during their "Hamburg period" is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Taking uppers to play five sets a night, and then consuming alcohol to come down was what most kids in rock bands were doing then. The psychedelic drugs they began taking around 1966 (when they stopped touring) profoundly changed the direction of their music.

PP was objecting to the clean and sober thing.

Although I will say that most bands were not doing the Hamburg thing. That’s a big reason they came back to Liverpool so much better than everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Let me point to more evidence that they were different from other Liverpool bands by the time they went to Hamburg (and certainly by the time they came back from the first Hamburg trip in 1961):

They wore leather jackets, leather pants and cowboy boots. No other bands dressed like that. The others were usually in some version of coordinated suits.

They played loud, fast, hard rock n roll. Not the softer Shadows/Cliff Richard stuff that was popular then. In fact, George and John wrote Cry For a Shadow as a spoof on the Shadows.

They cursed, drank, smoke, and ate on stage. Sounds tame now but it was pretty edgy back then, when the Cavern technically only allowed jazz.

It’s hard to overestimate how different they were from other bands starting in 1961. That’s why people would line up all night for tickets to the next day’s Cavern Club show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer listening to the Stones, although I know "importance wise" the Beatles have it.

I say Stones too. I’m one to think Beatles are overrated, maybe because they ended while they were still ahead of the game?

Glad to see some Stones partisans here.

I really think they are appples and oranges, very different music. As someone has said:

The Beatles are the best pop band ever, and Zeppelin are the best Rock and Roll band ever.

Fixed it.

OP here, I love this

Zeppelin’s problem is they didn’t know when to end a song. And they were pretty one note. The Stones had growth, explored different styles of music, their songs have atmosphere and great lyrics.

Have you ever listened to Led Zeppelin?

I know! Right?